Thursday, November 04, 2004

Unlike a majority of Americans who consider themselves religious, I did not vote for President Bush (we can discuss my third-party leanings in another forum). But I am impressed with the reasons Americans gave for their votes. More important than the war in Iraq or terrorism were moral values: abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. The left was caught entirely by surprise. Moral issues mattered for as many as 32% of those who voted. These issues were entirely off the radar screen for Kerry's people.

Religious people are almost entirely absent from the movers and shakers in the media (polls have shown that the people in the media are overwhelmingly left-leaning, pro-abortion, non-religious, etc.). Listening to the news, one would never suspect that religious values were important factors in the lives of ordinary Americans. I'm sure the media will continue to ignore religion, apart from occasional dire warnings about the danger of entering the Dark Ages if religion enters the public limelight instead of sexual perversion, or suggesting that certain politicians are unfit for office because they have been tainted with religion. But I am grateful that so many Americans actually do care about these matters - and not just in the Bible belt.

There are still a lot of decent people out there who share basic family values. The rejection of same-sex marriage in 11 states is further evidence of that. I may disagree with most voters on a lot of issues, including politics and religion, but I'm grateful that they care about values at all. There is hope for America, no matter who the President is.

4 comments:

So who did you vote for Jeff, if you don't mind my asking? I voted for Michael Badnarik, not because I agree with the Libertarians on all issues, but because they are constitutionally sound, fiscally conservative, non-interventionist (yet very pro-free-trade), and support my prerogative as a parent to educate my children according to my own values. My biggest beef with some of them is that they are not sufficiently anti-abortion, yet many of them are. So I found enough common ground to vote for Badnarik.

My dad had an interest in the Constitution party. The only thing he didn't like about them was that they don't think abortion should be performed in any case, and that includes rape, incest, etc. On my way to school yesterday, my MIL and I were listening to talk radio, and they had a soundbite of Teresa Kerry (I think), and she had said something to the effect of the Republicans shifting focus of things that really matter to things like family and faith. Hm. Makes one wonder what things are more important than family and faith.

amen to Cayblood. I was among the less than 1% that voted for Peroutka in Utah. If he had not been running, I would have gone with Bednarik.

As for choosing not to vote for Constitution party, think of it this way. Imagine a tug-of-war with a large rope. There is a knot in the middle of the rope. On one end are the Democrats, on the other end are the Republicans. The "ideal" point for the Republicans is way to the right. The "ideal" point for the Democrats is way to the left. Where the knot in the rope actually ends up at is the result of compromises between the two sides. The trouble is the the actually position of the knot in the middle has gone WAY to the left (i.e., compare planks of communist manifesto to where we are today to where we were one and two centuries ago). And it accomplishes this because the Republicans 'compromise' more than the democrats do. In essence, you have the 'ratchet' effect, where the rope can stay stationary or can move in one direction, but it does not move back in the other direction.

Now, if one is upset with government, they must recognize that it is the Democrats and the Republicans that got us where we are. So, even if you believe the Constitution Party or the Libertarians go too far, voting for them is the right choice, because while they are unlikely to be able to accomplish as extreme measures as they wish due to resistance from Democrats and RINOs (they won't 'win' the tug-o-war), they will be more effective than the Republicans at checking the gradual but sure movement, and perhaps even pulling the knot in the middle further to the right. But as long as we keep voting for the same two parties that got us where we are, we aren't going to see much change for the better.

OK, I'll fess up. I went to the polls prepared to vote for my favorite candidate, Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. He stands for a lot of the things I think are needed to save this country. We cannot protect our liberties by continuing to erode the Constitution and grow government. But he wasn't on our ballot in Wisconsin. I guess I should have done a write-in vote, but I got almost the same level of satisfaction by voting for the Libertarian candidate who was on our ballot. I'm comfortable with over half of the Libertarian agenda, far greater comfort than the two main parties offer me.